זבחים 48 — Soncino English Talmud

¹AS FOR THE BULLOCK AND THE HE-GOAT OF THE DAY OF ATONEMENT etc. Consider: the north [side of the altar] is written in connection with the burnt-offering, then let him teach [about] the burnt-offering first? — Because this is deduced about the sin-offering by exegesis, he cherishes it more. Then let him teach the outer sin-offerings [first]? — Because the blood of these [which he does enumerate] enters the inner sanctuary, he cherishes it more. Now, where is the north written in connection with the burnt-offering? — And he shall kill it on the side of the altar northward. We have thus found [it of] the flocks; how do we know [it of] the herd? — Scripture saith, And [we] if his offering be of the flock: the waw [and] continues the preceding section, so that the [subject] above may be deduced from [that] below. That is well on the view that you can learn [the subject above from that below]; but on the view that you cannot learn [it thus], what can be said? For it was taught: And if any one sin etc.; this teaches that one is liable to a guilt-offering of suspense on account of doubtful trespass: that is R. Akiba's ruling. But the Sages exempt [him]. Surely then they disagree in this: one master holds that we learn [the subject above from that below], while the other master holds that we do not learn it? — Said R. Papa: All agree that we do learn [thus], but this is the Rabbis’ reason: mizwoth is employed here, and mizwoth is employed in connection with the sin-offering of forbidden fat: as there it means a law whose deliberate infringement entails kareth and its unwitting infringement entails a sin-offering, so here too [it is entailed only by] that whose deliberate infringement entails kareth, while its unwitting infringement involves a sin-offering. And R. Akiba? — As there it is fixed, so here it is fixed, thus excluding the sin-offering for the defilement of the sanctuary and its sacred objects [sacrifices], which is variable. And the Rabbis? — There is no semi gezerah shawah. But R. Akiba too [surely admits that] there is no semi gezerah shawah? — That indeed is so; here, however, they differ in this: R. Akiba holds: ‘And if a soul’ is written, and the waw indicates conjunction with the preceding subject. But [according to] the Rabbis too, surely it is written, And if a soul? Shall we say that they differ in this: one master holds that a hekkesh is stronger; while the other master holds that a gezerah shawah is stronger? — No: all agree that the gezerah shawah is stronger, but the Rabbis can answer you: the subject below is learnt from that above, that the guilt-offering must be [two] silver shekels in value, so that you should not say: Surely the doubt cannot be more stringent than the certainty: as the certainty [of sin] requires a sin-offering [even] a sixth [of a zuz in value], so [for] the doubt a guilt-offering of a sixth [of a zuz] is sufficient. Now, how does R. Akiba know this? — He deduces it from [the text,] And this is the law of the guilt-offering, [which intimates that] there is one law for all guilt-offerings. That is well on the view that ‘law’ can be [so] interpreted; but on the view that ‘law’ cannot be so interpreted, whence does he derive [it]? — He derives [it] from the repetition of ‘according to thy valuation.’ [But] what can be said of the guilt-offering of a maidservant promised in marriage, where according to thy valuation’ is not written? — He derives [it from] the repetition of ‘with the ram.’ How do we know that a sin-offering requires the north? — Because it is written, And he shall kill the sin-offering in the place of the burnt-offering. We have found [it of] slaughtering: how do we know [it of] receiving? Because it is written, And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin-offering. How do we know that the receiver himself [must stand in the north]? The text says, ‘And he shall take’, [which intimates,] he shall [be]take himself [to the place where the blood is received]. We have thus found [it as] a regulation; how do we know that it is indispensable? — Another text is written, And he shall kill it for a sin-offering in the place where they kill the burnt-offering; and it was taught: Where is the burnt-offering slaughtered? in the north: so this too is [slaughtered] in the north.^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ

^ᵃnote:V. infra 53b.
^ᵇnote:I.e., the Tanna is more desirous of teaching the results of exegesis than what Scripture states explicitly, and therefore he gives them preference.
^ᶜnote:V. infra 52b.
^ᵈnote:It is more important in his eyes, and hence he teaches it first.
^ᵉnote:Lev. I, 11.
^ᶠnote:To which the text refers.
^ᵍnote:Ibid. 10; and is expressed by the letter waw in Heb., punctuated we.
^ʰnote:Lit., ‘adds to’.
^ⁱnote:When a passage commences with ‘and’, this conjunction links it with the previous portion, and a law stated in one applies to the other too. Here the subject above is the burnt-offering of the herd, and the subject below is that of the flock.
^ʲnote:By means of a conjunction waw.
^ᵏnote:Lev. V, 17.
^ˡnote:V. Mishnah infra 54b. Now, the subject immediately preceding deals with the guilt-offering for putting sacred things to secular use (vv. 14-16), when the offender learns that he has definitely sinned. If one is in doubt whether he has offended, this text teaches that he must bring a guilt-offering of suspense (i.e., doubt). The doubt arises thus: Two things lie before a man, one of which he puts to secular use. Subsequently he learns that one of these was sacred, and he does not know which.
^ᵐnote:And if any one sin introduces the law of the guilt-offering of suspense for doubtful sin. By learning the subject above from it, it follows that this is entailed by doubtful trespass too.
^ⁿnote:For not doing so here.
^ᵒnote:Lit. ‘commandments’: and if any one sin, and do any of the mizwoth (E.V. things) which the Lord hath commanded not to be done etc.
^ᵖnote:Lev. IV, 27. Forbidden fat is not mentioned there, but ‘a sin-offering of forbidden fat’ is the usual designation in the Talmud for an ordinary sin-offering. The reason is because Ye shall eat neither fat nor blood (Lev. III, 17) is followed by Ch. IV, which deals with sin-offerings (Rashi in Sot. 15a). Asheri (in Ned. 4a) explains the reason because the most usual form of sinning thus is eating forbidden fat through having it in the house.
^ᵠnote:Sc. the guilt-offering of suspense.
^ʳnote:I.e., a guilt-offering of suspense is brought only when one is in doubt whether he has committed an offence, which, if certainly committed, entails kareth or a sin-offering. But the secular misuse of sacred property does not involve a sin-offering, consequently one is not liable to a guilt-offering for doubtful trespass.
^ˢnote:How does he interpret this gezerah shawah?
^ᵗnote:Lit., ‘ascends (in value) and descends’. — The ordinary sin-offering is fixed and the same for rich and poor alike. This gezerah shawah then teaches that a guilt-offering of suspense is incurred only for the doubtful violation of a law which, if definitely violated, involves a fixed sin-offering. But if one is doubtful whether he entered the Temple whilst unclean, he does not bring a guilt-offering of suspense, because if he were certain he would only be liable to a variable sacrifice (v. Lev. V, 1-10).
^ᵘnote:What is their view on this?
^ᵛnote:A gezerah shawah shews similarity in all respects, not in some only.
^ʷnote:As above.
^ˣnote:And it was stated above that all agree that the subject above is learnt from that below.
^ʸnote:The hekkesh or analogy arises from the waw, which couples both subjects. Thus apparently the Rabbis give preference to the gezerah shawah, while R. Akiba gives preference to the hekkesh (only one can be employed here, since they yield apparently contradictory results).
^ᶻnote:The earlier passage reads: then he shall bring . . . according to thy valuations in silver by shekels . . . a guilt-offering (v. 15), which the Rabbis interpret as meaning not less than two shekels. The analogy therefore teaches that the guilt-offering of suspense in v. 18 must also have that value.
^ᵃᵃnote:Hence the hekkesh teaches otherwise.
^ᵃᵇnote:Lev. VII, 1.
^ᵃᶜnote:Heb. lfrgc. It is repeated in Lev. V, 15 and Lev. V, 18, and this furnishes a gezerah shawah, which teaches that they must be of equal value in both cases.
^ᵃᵈnote:Ibid. XIX, 20-22.
^ᵃᵉnote:Ibid. V, 16 and XIX, 22.
^ᵃᶠnote:Ibid. IV, 24.
^ᵃᵍnote:Ibid 25. This is connected with the immediately preceding words, ‘in the place where they kill the burnt-offering.’ — ‘ Take’ means to receive the blood.
^ᵃʰnote:And not in the south and stretch out his hand to the north. (A line — imaginary — demarcated the north and the south, and so it would be possible to stand on one side of the line — south — and receive the blood on the other — the north.)
^ᵃⁱnote:I.e., the north.
^ᵃʲnote:That the sacrifice is invalid otherwise.
^ᵃᵏnote:Ibid. 33. This treats of a lamb brought by a prince (ruler) as a sin-offering.
^ᵃˡnote:Sc. the sin-offering.

²Do you then learn it from this verse? Is it not already stated, In the place where the burnt-offering is killed shall the sin-offering be killed? why then has this been singled out? To fix the place for it, so that if one did not slaughter it in the north, it is invalid. You say it has been singled out for this purpose, yet perhaps it is not so, but rather [to teach] that this one [alone] requires the north, but no other requires the north? Therefore it states, ‘And he shall kill the sin-offering in the place of the burnt-offering,’ thus constituting a general law in respect of all sin-offerings that they require the north. We have thus found [it true of] a prince's sin-offering, that it is both a recommendation and indispensable; we have also found it as a recommendation in the case of other sin-offerings; how do we know that it is indispensable [for other sin-offerings]? Because it is written in reference to both the lamb and the she-goat. Then what is the purpose of ‘it’? — That is required for what was taught: ‘It’ [is slaughtered] on the north, but Nahshon's goat was not [slaughtered] in the north. And it was taught: And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the goat includes Nahshon's goat, in respect of laying [hands]: that is R. Judah's view. R. Simeon said: It includes the goats brought on account of idolatry, in respect of laying [hands]. You might argue, Since they are included in respect of laying [hands], they are included in respect of the north. Hence we are informed [otherwise]. To this Rabina demurred: That is well on R. Judah's view; but what can be said on R. Simeon's? — Said Mar Zutra son of R. Mari to Rabina: And is it well on R. Judah's view? [surely], where it is included, it is included, and where it is not included, it is not included? And should you say, Had Scripture not excluded it, [its inclusion] would be inferred by analogy: if so, let laying [hands] itself be inferred by analogy? But [you must answer that] a temporary [sacrifice] can not be inferred from a permanent one, so here too, a temporary [sacrifice] cannot be inferred from a permanent one? — Rather [it teaches this]: ‘It’ [is slaughtered in the north], but the slaughterer need not be in the north. But [the law concerning] the slaughterer is deduced by R. Ahia's [exegesis]? For it was taught, R. Ahia said: And he shall kill it on the side of the altar northward’: why is this stated? Because we find that the receiving priest must stand in the north and receive [the blood] in the north, while if he stood in the south and received [the blood] in the north it is invalid. You might think that this [slaughtering] is likewise. Therefore Scripture states, ‘[And he shall kill] it’, [intimating that] ‘it’ must be in the north, but the slaughterer need not be in the north! — Rather [it teaches this]: ‘It’ [must be killed] in the north, but a bird does not need the north. For it was taught: You might think that a bird-offering needs the north, and this is indeed logical: If [Scripture] prescribed north for a lamb, though it did not prescribe a priest for it, is it not logical that it should prescribe north for a bird, seeing that it did prescribe a priest for it? Therefore ‘it’ is stated. [No:] as for a lamb, the reason is because [Scripture] prescribed a utensil for it! — Rather, [it teaches this]: ‘It’ [must be killed] in the north, but the Passover-offering [need] not [be slaughtered] in the north. For it was taught, R. Eliezer b. Jacob said: You might think that a Passover-offering needs the north, and this is indeed logical: if [Scripture] prescribed the north for a burnt-offering, though it did not prescribe a fixed season for its slaughtering; is it not logical that it should prescribe the north for a Passover-offering, seeing that it did prescribe a fixed season for its slaughtering? Therefore ‘it’ is stated. [No:] as for a burnt-offering, the reason is because it is altogether burnt. [Then learn it] from a sin-offering. As for a sin-offering, the reason is because it makes atonement for those who are liable to kareth! [Then learn it] from a guilt-offering. [No:] as for a guilt-offering, the reason is because it is a most sacred sacrifice! [And you] cannot [learn it] from all these likewise, because they are most sacred sacrifices! — After all, it is as we said originally: ‘It’ [must be] in the north, but the slaughterer need not be in the north, and as to your difficulty, ‘That is deduced from R. Ahia's exegesis’, [the answer is that] it does not [really] exclude the slaughterer from the north, but [is meant thus]: The slaughterer need not be in the north, [whence it follows that] the receiver must be in the north, ‘The receiver’? Surely that is deduced from ‘and he shall take,’ [which we interpret] let him [be]take himself [to the north]? — He does not interpret ‘and he shall take’ as meaning ‘let him [be]take himself,’ We have thus found a recommendation that slaughtering a burnt-offering must be in the north, and a [similar] recommendation about receiving; how do we know that [the north] is indispensable in the case of slaughtering and receiving? — Said R. Adda b. Ahabah, — others state, Rabbah b. Shila: [It is deduced] afortiori: If it is indispensable in the case of a sin-offering, which is [only] learnt from a burnt-offering, surely it is logical that it is indispensable in the case of a burnt-offering, from which a sin-offering is learnt. [No:] As for a sin-offering, the reason is because it makes atonement for those who are liable to kareth! Said Rabina: This is R. Adda's difficulty: Do we ever find the secondary more stringent than the primary? Said Mar Zutra son of R. Mari to Rabina: Do we not?^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ^ᵇᶜ^ᵇᵈ^ᵇᵉ^ᵇᶠ^ᵇᵍ^ᵇʰ^ᵇⁱ^ᵇʲ^ᵇᵏ^ᵇˡ^ᵇᵐ

^ᵃᵐnote:Lev. VI, 18. This applies to all sin-offerings.
^ᵃⁿnote:The sin-offering brought by a prince.
^ᵃᵒnote:The repetition teaches this.
^ᵃᵖnote:Sc. that mentioned in Lev. IV, 33.
^ᵃᵠnote:Ibid.
^ᵃʳnote:Ibid. 29.
^ᵃˢnote:In verse 33 quoted supra: ‘it’ implies limitation, whereas all sin-offerings have been included.
^ᵃᵗnote:I.e., the sin-offerings brought at the consecration of the altar, which were not on account of sin at all; v. Num. VII, 12 seq.
^ᵃᵘnote:Lev. IV, 24. This refers to the prince's goat: instead of ‘head of the goat’, Scripture could say, ‘its head’; the longer form is regarded as an extension.
^ᵃᵛnote:He does not include it in respect of laying hands: then a text is not required to shew that north does not apply to it.
^ᵃʷnote:No text is necessary for this.
^ᵃˣnote:Lit, (text as emended by Sh. M.) ‘you do not learn the hour from generations’ — You could not learn that Nahshon's goat required laying hands, by analogy with an ordinary sin-offering, because the former was a special ad hoc offering, whereas the ordinary sin-offering was for all time.
^ᵃʸnote:In respect of north.
^ᵃᶻnote:So that in any case there is no reason for thinking that Nahshon's sin-offering required the north; why then is a text needed to exclude it?
^ᵇᵃnote:He can stand in the south near the boundary line, stretch out his hand, and slaughter it in the north.
^ᵇᵇnote:When its neck is wrung.
^ᵇᶜnote:It may be slaughtered by a zar.
^ᵇᵈnote:As a limitation.
^ᵇᵉnote:It must be slaughtered with a knife, whereas a bird merely has its neck wrung. Hence again there is no reason for thinking that a bird requires north, and therefore no need for a limitation.
^ᵇᶠnote:Which is not altogether burnt, yet requires the north.
^ᵇᵍnote:Sc. the burnt-offering, guilt-offering and sin-offering.
^ᵇʰnote:For that is arrived at by R. Ahia's exegesis.
^ᵇⁱnote:Text as emended by Sh. M.
^ᵇʲnote:In the sense that the sacrifice is otherwise invalid.
^ᵇᵏnote:Lit., ‘which comes from the strength of a burnt-offering’.
^ᵇˡnote:In spite of the refutation, he employs this afortiori argument on account of the following difficulty.
^ᵇᵐnote:Although a sin-offering makes atonement for those liable to kareth, here it is only secondary to a burnt-offering, since ‘north’ is written primarily in connection with the latter.